Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Interesting Narration By Ibn Umar

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

If I am not mistaken I remember something about Umar's son being scared of being brought to justice for the killing of Persian's following the killing of his father i.e. Ibn Umar had essentially committed murder by killing Persians who had no connection with Abu Lulu. This would explain why he was unsupportive of the Caliphate of Imam Ali (as) because he was quite certain that his crimes would have to be punished and he possibly feared being executed if he was subjected to a trial by a just and righteous Khalifa i.e. Ali (as). But he knew that Muawiyah was a duplicitous, immoral, Machiavellian despot who would overlook his crimes even if they were heinous and obviously contradictory to Sharia. Therefore he placed his own interest above that of the rule of Allah and the interest of the Umma. Same thing applied to the caliphate of Yazid (la) i.e. he was assured of immunity by another despotic, dictatorial, Machiavellian hypocrite so he naturally whipped up support for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

bro, haider, does Muawiyah really gave allegiance to Imam ali(a.s)??

If YES, than he will come under the tradition of ibne umar.

Well, what about Talha and Zubair Who gave allegiance to Imam ali, but later fought against the imam in batle of Jamal along side with hazrat aisha??

i remember some where i read that ibne umar at his last time, regreted on not to fight with Muawiyah under the support of imam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Also Ibn Umar said: "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection', ......

Then he goes on and talks about allegiance to Yazid, does that mean He was trying to imply whoever did not give allegiance to Yazid would be deemed as betrayer including Imam Hussain a.s (na'uzibillah)

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

There is a well-known narration in Sahih Bukhari where `Abdullah ibn `Umar says:

Sahih Bukhari. Vol 9, Book 88. Hadith 227.

Narrated By Nafi' : When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection', and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle, and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone/disconnect Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

This was said in 683 AH, when Ibn `Umar was about 69. He was therefore a mature man during the Caliphate of `Ali (as), and obviously knew the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh), since he heard it himself.

Now, there interesting points to me are the following:

If there is nothing more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the condition enjoined by Allah and His Apostle, then where does that leave Mu`awiya and the other Sahaba that fought against Imam `Ali (as)? Logically speaking, if fighting against Yazid, after all the crimes he had committed, was an act of total faithlessness, then how can the same not be the case of fighting against `Ali (as)?

In light of that, why did Ibn `Umar immediately pledge support to Mu`awiya when the latter declared his caliphate? Did he do the same for Imam Hasan (as) when he declared his caliphate? Doesn't seem like it.

And finally, the big question, just why was he not willing to support Imam `Ali (as)'s caliphate? Was `Ali (as) not a legitimate caliph in his view? It's not like there were any rivals claiming caliphate at the time everyone else was pledging allegiance.

It's kind of hard not to come to the conclusion that Ibn `Umar had nasibi tendencies when you see his behaviour here, and then remember certain narrations like:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203:

Narrated Ibn `Umar: The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."

Ok. So presumably in his view `Ali (as) must have been ordering an act of disobedience to Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Otherwise how could he justify not giving allegiance, or giving allegiance to someone who disobeyed the ruler?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 7:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

We used to compare the people as to who was better during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle . We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best, then 'Umar, and then 'Uthman.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 47:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During the lifetime of the Prophet we considered Abu Bakr as peerless and then 'Umar and then 'Uthman (coming next to him in superiority) and then we used not to differentiate between the companions of the Prophet.

So `Ali (as) was of the same status as any other companion after the first three he mentions. Nothing special about him at all. It would be one thing if he mentioned only Abu Bakr and `Umar, since Sunnis consider them to be far above the others, but he includes `Uthman as well, but not `Ali (as). This seems like a deliberate attempt to lower his status.

Did muawiyah give allegiance to ali ra? I thought he didnt. As for zubair ra and talha ra - although I have heard their alligiance was done under duress. they didnt disobey ali ra directly- we believe it was just confusion on both sides during those confusing times. Infact zubair ra and talha ra died not fighting.

some sahabahs did not give allegiance to ali ra but gave it to muawiyah - but both their situations were totally different.

now with regards to ali ra not being highly valued by ibne umar ra. infact the position of the sunnis is that ali ra was an ashra mubashara sahabi and a khalifa rashid. Just because abu bakr ra, umar ra and uthman ra are valued higher by the sunnis does not in any way demean ali ra or any other sahabi for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Did muawiyah give allegiance to ali ra? I thought he didnt.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203:

Narrated Ibn `Umar: The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."

Wasn't `Ali (as) the ruler? Wasn't it obligatory on Mu`awiya to obey? Or do you believe that `Ali (as) perfomed an act of disobedience to Allah سبحانه وتعالى?

Anyway, it's not that clear that in the hadith Ibn `Umar is only addressing those that gave allegiance to Yazid. I somehow doubt every single person in Madina gave allegiance. When he was talking of allegiance; I think he ,eant in general terms, by those important Muslims. And `Ali (as) was given that type of allegiance.

As for zubair ra and talha ra - although I have heard their alligiance was done under duress.

Why would it need to be under duress? Wasn't `Ali (as) worthy of being Caliph?

they didnt disobey ali ra directly- we believe it was just confusion on both sides during those confusing times.

I'm sorry, but saying it was just one big confusion is nothing but a cop out. The fact is Talha and Zubayr lined up against `Ali (as).

Infact zubair ra and talha ra died not fighting.

Please tell me how Talha died.

some sahabahs did not give allegiance to ali ra but gave it to muawiyah - but both their situations were totally different.

What was the excuse for not giving allegiance to `Ali (as)?

now with regards to ali ra not being highly valued by ibne umar ra. infact the position of the sunnis is that ali ra was an ashra mubashara sahabi and a khalifa rashid. Just because abu bakr ra, umar ra and uthman ra are valued higher by the sunnis does not in any way demean ali ra or any other sahabi for that matter.

I think you are missing the point. Do you believe that there is no real difference between Imam `Ali (as) and the other Sahaba? Because this is what Ibn `Umar basically said:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 47:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During the lifetime of the Prophet we considered Abu Bakr as peerless and then 'Umar and then 'Uthman (coming next to him in superiority) and then we used not to differentiate between the companions of the Prophet.

Edited by Haydar Husayn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203:

Narrated Ibn `Umar: The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."

Wasn't `Ali (as) the ruler? Wasn't it obligatory on Mu`awiya to obey? Or do you believe that `Ali (as) perfomed an act of disobedience to Allah سبحانه وتعالى?

I infact do believe that ali ra was more on the haq than muawiyah in their disagreement. however muawiyah did not give him bayah until ali ra did qisas for the murder of uthman ra. This was an exceptional situation - if for arguments sake uthman ra died naturally and ali ra was chosen then I have no doubts that muawiyah would have also given the bayah to ali ra. So neither did ali ra nor muawiyah acted intentionally in a disobedient way.

Why would it need to be under duress? Wasn't `Ali (as) worthy of being Caliph?

no doubt ali ra was a worth caliph but the sabi'tes forced talha ra and zubair ra to do bayah as they took over madinah. Now despite this there is no proof that talha ra and zubair ra directly disobeyed ali ra in any way.

I'm sorry, but saying it was just one big confusion is nothing but a cop out. The fact is Talha and Zubayr lined up against `Ali (as).

not really - if they lined up against each other then no doubt zubair ra and talha ra would have been martyred fighting and muawiyah would have actively supported them aswell. this battle was not like any other battle as you have inferred above. we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Please tell me how Talha died.

he was killed by some arrows fired by the sabaiyah. the narrations about marwan bin hakim are fabricated according to the majority of scholars who have studied the seerah

I think you are missing the point. Do you believe that there is no real difference between Imam `Ali (as) and the other Sahaba? Because this is what Ibn `Umar basically said:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 47:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During the lifetime of the Prophet we considered Abu Bakr as peerless and then 'Umar and then 'Uthman (coming next to him in superiority) and then we used not to differentiate between the companions of the Prophet.

I understand your point. sunnis believe tha ali ra was an ashra mubashara sahabi and him being the 4th rightly guided khalifa attests to the fact that ali ra was viewed very highly amongst the remaining sahabah. many scholars infact say that ali ra was the 4th in rank amongst the sahabah. now with regards to the hadith mentioned- ibne umar ra meant we would not differentiate amonst the companions purely because of their status and also to highlight the fact that abu bakr ra umar ra and uthman ra were rated the best. The hadiths on the virtues of ali ra clearly indicate that ali ra was an ashra mubashara sahabi (i.e. top ten given glad tidings).

many sunnis today dont like to differentiate between the sahabah out of respect and honour for them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

Yes, everything was done by the 'sabaiyah'

Yes blame it all them, as if Mu'awiya had no desire for rulership. Just adding to what bro Hayder said here are few narrations to give clear intentions of Mu'awiya ibn Abu Sufyan from the start.

From Bukhari

The following narration Mu'awiya thinks he deserved caliphate more than Ibn Umar and his father.....

Narrated Ikrima bin Khalid: Ibn 'umar said, "I went to Hafsa while water was dribbling from her twined braids. I said, 'The condition of the people is as you see, and no authority has been given to me.' Hafsa said, (to me), 'Go to them, and as they (i.e. the people) are waiting for you, and I am afraid your absence from them will produce division amongst them.' " So Hafsa did not leave Ibn 'umar till we went to them. When the people differed. muawiya addressed the people saying, "'If anybody wants to say anything in this matter of the Caliphate, he should show up and not conceal himself, for we are more rightful to be a Caliph than he and his father." On that, Habib bin Masalama said (to Ibn 'umar), "Why don't you reply to him (i.e. muawiya)?" 'Abdullah bin 'umar said, "I untied my garment that was going round my back and legs while I was sitting and was about to say, 'He who fought against you and against your father for the sake of Islam, is more rightful to be a Caliph,' but I was afraid that my statement might produce differences amongst the people and cause bloodshed, and my statement might be interpreted not as I intended. (So I kept quiet) remembering what Allah has prepared in the Gardens of Paradise (for those who are patient and prefer the Hereafter to this worldly life)." Habib said, "You did what kept you safe and secure (i.e. you were wise in doing so)." (Book #59, Hadith#434)

In the following authentic narration he makes it even more clearer his real intentions......

Sahih narration in al-Musannaf of Ibn Abee Shaybah, vol. 6, p. 187, # 30556:

حدثنا أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن عمرو بن مرة عن سعيد بن سويد قال صلى بنا معاوية الجمعة بالنخيلة في الضحى ثم خطبنا فقال ما قاتلتكم لتصلوا ولا لتصوموا ولا لتحجوا ولا لتزكوا وقد أعرف أنكم تفعلون ذلك ولكن إنما قاتلتكم لأتأمر عليكم وقد أعطاني الله ذلك وأنتم له كارهون

Narrated Sa'eed b. Suwayd:

Mu'aawiyah led us in the Jumu'ah prayer at al-Nakheelah AT THE TIME OF DUHAA (i.e. in the morning). After that, he delivered a sermon and said, "I did not fight you to make you offer Salaah, or yo fast, or to make you perform Hajj or to pay Zakaah. I already knew that you were performing those duties. Rather, I FOUGHT YOU ONLY TO RULE OVER YOU, and Allaah has granted that to me, and you do not want it."

Imam Ali a.s made it even more clearer, Ibn Hajar records:

المطالب العالية لابن حجر (12/379):

[ 4514 - قال مسدد ، حدثنا عبد الله ، عن زنيج ، عن أبي موسى ، عن عبد الله بن أبي سفيان قال : إن عليا قال : « إن بني أمية يقاتلونني ، يزعمون أنني قتلت عثمان ، وكذبوا ، إنما يريدون الملك ، ولو أعلم أنه يذهب ما في قلوبهم أني أحلف لهم عند المقام : والله ما قتلت عثمان ، ولا أمرت بقتله لفعلت ، ولكن إنما يريدون الملك . وإني لأرجو أن أكون أنا وعثمان ممن قال الله عز وجل : ونزعنا ما في صدورهم من غل الآية »].

Imam Ali made it clear that the "ONLY" DESIRE of BANI UMMAYAH was to have a RULER/KING/AUTHORITY and that he was aware of their intentions!

Mu'awiya avenge for Usman's blood was just an excuse, we all know what his real motives were.

Edited by muslimunity1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I infact do believe that ali ra was more on the haq than muawiyah in their disagreement. however muawiyah did not give him bayah until ali ra did qisas for the murder of uthman ra. This was an exceptional situation - if for arguments sake uthman ra died naturally and ali ra was chosen then I have no doubts that muawiyah would have also given the bayah to ali ra. So neither did ali ra nor muawiyah acted intentionally in a disobedient way.

Its irrelevant ... who you think is on Haq or not. Imam Ali as is with the truth and the truth is with Imam Ali a.s.

Hving said that there is no room for doubt what ever the given circumstances Muawiyah was wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Their disagreement was over one issue, if Mu`awiya is to be believed. So how can one person be more on haqq than the other? If one person is on haqq on this issue, then the other person isn't.

However, I would be interested in knowing on what issues you felt `Ali (as) was not correct, and/or on which issues Mu`awiya was correct.

Obviously `Ali (as) didn't act in a disobedient way, since he was Caliph. As for Mu`awiya, since when is a personal vendetta a good enough reason to go against the Caliph? And why do quickly? Didn't he trust `Ali (as) to administer justice? Why couldn't he have gone to meet him personally and presented his case? Why raise a whole army against him, and shed the blood of Muslims? Is this how you think these matter should be settled?

It does not befit me to say that ali ra or muawiyah made mistakes or point out their mistakes. who am i compared to the rank of the sahabah. however just to be clear - ali ra was innocent and did not make any incorrect decisions.by Allah - I love ali ra. He was hindered by the people around whom killed uthman ra and caused trouble madinah. He was better than muawiyah - but some of his "supporters" were rebels and were pretty bad.

with regards to muawiyah - he had every right to call for qisaas as firsly he became the head of banu ummayah after uthman ra death and hence the man in charge to take qisaas especially after uthman ra' wife sent a letter to him. Also a couple of his daughters were married to the sons of uthman ra. he felt the quran ayahs supported his case with regards to qisaas and wanted it done immediately whereas ali ra wanted time. the manner in which ali ra was given the khilafah was not best with madinah under seige by the rebels hence the opinion in the other areas such as syria was the ali ra did not have control of his army fully - this became apparant later on in his ra khilafah

this was not a personal vendetta, nor was it greed, nor lack of trust- why cant you accept that this was a unique situation? yes I believe ali ra was more on the haqq because he had a more complete understanding of the situation whereas muawiyah was on the outside. do you think the rebels would have let ali ra meet muawiyah face to face?? no chance because they knew they were "dead meat". they wouldnt let ali ra appoint ibne abbas ra meet amr bin al aas ra after siffeen.

Let's assume for argument's sake that they were forced by the 'sabites'. Then tell me why they needed to be forced in the first place? Why not do it willingly? And is `Ali (as) such a person that he would accept these forced bayahs, and say nothing to the 'sabites'?

They were in an opposing army. What more proof do you want?

So to you if you fight the rightful Caliph and you die, then you become a martyr? SubhanAllah!

Anyway, Talha and Zubayr were not part of an army then? What were they doing at Jamal? Sightseeing?

Instead of just asserting that it was not like any other battle, you need to explain why.

I have already explained - talha ra and zubair ra left madinah with NO army but when to went to iraq people supported them. thats how they got their "army". In terms of the bayah - the acknowledged ali ra worthiness to be the khalifah but it was the rebels that forced them under the sword who had no right nor the authourity nor even the status to do such things.

Yes, everything was done by the 'sabaiyah'. :rolleyes:

who killed uthman ra ?? we both know that the sabiites initiated the rebellion on the pretext of a forged letter which they conveniently managed to intercept !!! these same people who caused ali ra so much problems in his khilafah !!!

Wake up brother! You are being fed fairytales. Try thinking about this yourself, and wonder if this all makes sense.

ok so why did they fight ali ra then? for khilafah aswell?? because they hated ali ra? dont forget that zubair ra was the first cousin of ali ra and the prophet pbuh

how can you question me when the shia version sounds bizarre. that some guys left madinah with no army after the murder uthman ra and when they were killed not even fighting the army of ali ra.we all know how brave they were aswell. infact talha ra could not fight physically. why go to iraq and not syria then? why did ali ra go after them if they had an army knowing it will cause bloodshed.

So it was worth highlighting that `Uthman was the third best, but not that `Ali (as) was the fourth best? You believe there is such a difference in status between the two?

Maybe, but according to your beliefs Abu Bakr and `Umar are clearly better than everyone else.

i really think you are being petulent here - what are you trying to imply? its like me saying to you that you love ali ra more than hassan ra .

have you not heard the ashra mubashara hadiths? yes we acknowledge that there were ranks amongst the sahabah but we love them all and honour them and do not talk about one to the detrement here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken I remember something about Umar's son being scared of being brought to justice for the killing of Persian's following the killing of his father i.e. Ibn Umar had essentially committed murder by killing Persians who had no connection with Abu Lulu. This would explain why he was unsupportive of the Caliphate of Imam Ali (as) because he was quite certain that his crimes would have to be punished and he possibly feared being executed if he was subjected to a trial by a just and righteous Khalifa i.e. Ali (as). But he knew that Muawiyah was a duplicitous, immoral, Machiavellian despot who would overlook his crimes even if they were heinous and obviously contradictory to Sharia. Therefore he placed his own interest above that of the rule of Allah and the interest of the Umma. Same thing applied to the caliphate of Yazid (la) i.e. he was assured of immunity by another despotic, dictatorial, Machiavellian hypocrite so he naturally whipped up support for him.

Wrong son of Umar - this refers to Abdullah ibn Umar, not Ubaidullah ibn Umar who committed the murders. He, I believe, was killed in one of the battles against Imam Ali - Siffeen I think.

As for Abdullah ibn Umar, I've read things which suggest that he had felt regret for not supporting Imam Ali (as), although he only gave bayah to Muawiyah for the sake for uniting the Ummah after the fitna - he wasn't a supprter of Muawiyah as such and stayed out of the fitnah because he didn't want to be involved in the bloodshed between Muslims. What he said about Yazeed was in the context of having Mecca and Madina attacked by Yazid's forces and once again to avoid bloodshed he gave this hadith.

It's all great looking back 1400 years later knowing what we know about how things turned out, but these historical snippets show that the sahaba were greatly concerned with the fitnah and clearly didn't see Imam Ali's position as it is now seen. Ibn Umar may have been a sahabi, but he was also fallible and may well have been more spiritually aware then others and therefore did not see Muslims fighting Muslims as something he wanted to be involved in at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare

As for Abdullah ibn Umar, I've read things which suggest that he had felt regret for not supporting Imam Ali (as)

Come on brother, do you really believe this nonsense. Even if we go by what you said where was his support for Imam Hassan a.s and not forgetting one of the 2 masters Imam Hussain a.s

From Bukhari

......and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone/disconnect Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

Do I need to say more.

although he only gave bayah to Muawiyah for the sake for uniting the Ummah after the fitna

He gave a ba'ya to a tyrant willingily.

he wasn't a supprter of Muawiyah as such and stayed out of the fitnah because he didn't want to be involved in the bloodshed between Muslims.

Fitna starter was Mu'awiya, he should have sided with the Imams by him not joining and fighting with the Imams he is as guilty as those who caused the fitna.

What he said about Yazeed was in the context of having Mecca and Madina attacked by Yazid's forces and once again to avoid bloodshed he gave this hadith.

Yeah bro, just read the emphasis he puts in the last few words .....then there will be separation between him and me."

It's all great looking back 1400 years later knowing what we know about how things turned out, but these historical snippets show that the sahaba were greatly concerned with the fitnah and clearly didn't see Imam Ali's position as it is now seen.

It was more clearer than bro, the Prophet s.a.w.w made it clear numerous times

Ibn Umar may have been a sahabi, but he was also fallible and may well have been more spiritually aware then others and therefore did not see Muslims fighting Muslims as something he wanted to be involved in at that time.

There is no spirituality at all for the ones that don't support the Ahlul Bayt a.s

Edited by muslimunity1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ibn Abbas gave bayah to Muawiyah and Yazid also. He and ibn Umar both tried tried to stop Imam Hussain from leaving for Kufa. Ibn Umar was also the one that freed Mukhtar from prison.

Also, I didn't say I believed it, just that I have seen reports about his regret. And, as I said, looking back its easy for us but even someone like Ammar (ra) faltered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I hate how people don't look at everything, only pick and choose and don't understand the whole story. All this nonsense about ibn Omer hating Hezrat Ali.

Imam Nasai narrated in his “Khasais” (#104) from Sad ibn Ubaida that a man came to ibn Umar, and asked him a question about Ali. He answered: “I wouldn’t tell you anything about him, but just look to his house (which is) from houses of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihihi wa sallam)”. Man said: “But I hate him”. Ibn Umar said to him: “May Allah hate you”.

Imam Nasai narrated similar words of ibn Umar about house of Ali from the al-Ala ibn Arar

Vigilare is right when he says that ibn Omer regreted not supporting Hezrat Ali during the first fitnah. After, the imam's assassination, ibne Omer came back to Hassan and expressed his regret and support him over Moawiyah. However, when Hezrat Hassan dropped his claim six months later, ibne Omer then gave bayah to him, again also wanting to see more fitnah between Muslims.

Again, the context of his saying about the various attacks after the murder in Kerbala. He did not want to see bloodshed, and he knew retaliation and a war of attrition would just bring more deaths.

"Ibn Umar wrote to Yazeed, 'Hasn't your heart gone black yet? You murdered the family of the Prophet?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

Here's another thing to ponder upon:

People not paying zakat to Abu Bakr made them apostates in the view of Sunnis (it's a complicated issue but this is the basic summary).

If a person merely not paying zakat to the khalifa truly makes them an apostate, then what about rising against a righteous khalifah?

Or are there double standards when it comes to Ali (as)?

(wasalam)

Do you have any narrations from sunni sources on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

with regards to muawiyah - he had every right to call for qisaas as firsly he became the head of banu ummayah after uthman ra death and hence the man in charge to take qisaas especially after uthman ra' wife sent a letter to him. Also a couple of his daughters were married to the sons of uthman ra. he felt the quran ayahs supported his case with regards to qisaas and wanted it done immediately whereas ali ra wanted time. the manner in which ali ra was given the khilafah was not best with madinah under seige by the rebels hence the opinion in the other areas such as syria was the ali ra did not have control of his army fully - this became apparant later on in his ra khilafah

So why didnt he (la) take qisas after he (la) became the khalifa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^

Do you know what the shia view of that is i.e. those who didn't pay zakat?

(salam)

i do not know but i don't find it too relevant here.

If the Shia view is that Abu Bakr was correct, then that would surely increase the seriousness of what those who rose against Ali(as) did, correct?

And if the Shia view is that Abu Bakr was incorrect then that would be a fault of his, but it wouldn't negate the seriousness of what those who rose against Ali(as), for there are other hadiths forbidding rising against the ruler, correct?

(wasalam)

Do you have any narrations from sunni sources on that?

From Sahih Muslim:

029. It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right.

http://www.searchtru...=28&number=0028

Edited by ImamAliLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare

Ibn Abbas gave bayah to Muawiyah and Yazid also.

What's the proof for this?

He and ibn Umar both tried tried to stop Imam Hussain from leaving for Kufa.

As for Hazrat Ibn Abass r.a advicing he did the same as Muhammed bin Hanifiya, theres wisdom behind their actions. As for Ibn Umar stopping he does not understand the position of the Imam as well as the earlier two.

Do you know what the shia view of that is i.e. those who didn't pay zakat?

You tell us bro?

Auqab

So why didnt he (la) take qisas after he (la) became the khalifa.

Exactly bro, why would he because he has already achieved his ultimate goal which was to become a ruler.

@Merdan

However, when Hezrat Hassan dropped his claim six months later, ibne Omer then gave bayah to him, again also wanting to see more fitnah between Muslims.

So when the Imam of the time drops his claim, you go running to a tyrant and give him ba'ya does that make him right? Come on bros, do you know how big of a crime it is not supproting the Imams with your words/actions etc

Again, the context of his saying about the various attacks after the murder in Kerbala. He did not want to see bloodshed, and he knew retaliation and a war of attrition would just bring more deaths.

Are you lot missing the point, I suggest you brothers look at the emphasis of his words and this in no way does it say that he did not wanna see bloodshed.... and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone/disconnect Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

The oath of allegiance he is talking about includes Imam Hussain a.s aswell, open your eyes please.

Edited by muslimunity1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@ Muslim Unity

So when the Imam of the time drops his claim, you go running to a tyrant and give him ba'ya does that make him right? Come on bros, do you know how big of a crime it is not supproting the Imams with your words/actions etc

First, he was pretty reluctant to do it, he even said before that he does not give bayah to kings. Just like Hezrat Hassan's decision to unite the ummah and cease bloodshed, that was the motivation behind the bayah giving of ibn Omer.

Just to see things from your point of view, though, how do you feel about this?

Hezrat Salmaan fought for Omer in the battle for Persia and accepted a governorship from him, is that not giving bayah?

___

If we're looking at the hadith, let's look at who ibne Omer is referring to:

Vol 9, Book 88. Sahih Bukhari. Hadith 227.

Narrated By Nafi' : When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone/disconnect Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

I mean, Hezrat Hossayn cannot be a part of this if we look at the hadith. I'll try to put it simply. Hossayn is Hossayn, ibn Omer knew that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

Here's another thing to ponder upon:

People not paying zakat to Abu Bakr made them apostates in the view of Sunnis (it's a complicated issue but this is the basic summary).

Something i wanted to mention for the sake of fairness, Sunnis tend to justify this because they generally (there are some differences of opinion but many say this) say that rejecting any of the 5 pillars is kufr.

For example, a common view is that anyone who abandons prayer is a kafir:

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/5208

Just wanted to give their reasoning for this because it's good to understand all sides of an issue. And of course a counter-question to this is does refusing to give zakat to the ruler count as rejecting/abandoning zakat?

And Allah(swt) knows best

Edited by ImamAliLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Merdan

First, he was pretty reluctant to do it, he even said before that he does not give bayah to kings. Just like Hezrat Hassan's decision to unite the ummah and cease bloodshed, that was the motivation behind the bayah giving of ibn Omer.

3 questions for you bro

1. Did Ibn Umar participate in the war of Jamal? If he did who was he siding, if he did not what was the reasons?

2. Did Imam Hassan a.s want war with Mu'awiya to remove fitna or did he want treaty, what was His a.s first choice?

3. During the period of war between Imam Hassan a.s and Mu'waiya, what was the postion of Ibn Umar?

Hezrat Salmaan fought for Omer in the battle for Persia and accepted a governorship from him, is that not giving bayah?

If this is true, then was this bayah willingly or he had to for the benefit for islaam, just like Imam Ali a.s sided with unjust rulers for greater good.

There is a saying little evil is necessary for greater good, giving them bayah for greater good of islam is a recommended act, now as for Ibn Umar did he give them bayah to Mu'awiya and Yazid willingly and from the answer of Him in the official post makes things clearer don't you think?

If we're looking at the hadith, let's look at who ibne Omer is referring to

Ok if we give Him the benefit of the doubt that he was not referring to Imam Hussain a.s but we know one thing for sure he was referring to others, there could have been other Hashmites there, who knows.

As for your other point him writing a letter to Yazid condemning him for his murder of Imam Hussain a.s, Ibn Zubair also went against Yazid on that issue but we know what his intentions were.

Allah swt knows best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s three ways to look at these situations, and in the context of the current discussion it can be one of the following:

Pro-Alid

Pro-Ummayad

Objectively

All actions carried out by those sahabis liked by shias are pro-alid automatically.

All actions carried out by those sahabis disliked by shias are pro-ummayad automatically and probably anti-Alid.

From a shia point of view (that is, ithna ashari) ibn Umar was already in the wrong for not supporting Imam Ali’s Imamat in the first place so his lack of involvement at Jamal and Siffeen further damns him. However, it also shows what kind of man he was, that he did not want bloodshed between Muslims and even though he was a pious person did not see Imamat they way it is seen/understood now.

Also, Ibn Umar stopped Hafsa from accompanying Aisha to Basra and therefore participating at Jamal. Not only did he not support any side during the early fitna, he also stopped his sister from doing so too. Also, had the majority of sahabas – who shias say had already become apostates through rejecting Imam Ali and accepting Abu Bakr – supported Aisha, Talha and Zubayr, or even Muawiyah, then Jamal may have had a different outcome.

Edited by Vigilare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Merdan

3 questions for you bro

1. Did Ibn Umar participate in the war of Jamal? If he did who was he siding, if he did not what was the reasons?

2. Did Imam Hassan a.s want war with Mu'awiya to remove fitna or did he want treaty, what was His a.s first choice?

3. During the period of war between Imam Hassan a.s and Mu'waiya, what was the postion of Ibn Umar?

1) No - he forbade his sister and did NOT go out in any battles where muslims were fighting each other

2) hassan ra went to war with muawiyah ra as he was the kahlifah and his right until he realised the best solution for many reasons was to make peace and do bayah to muawiyah.

3) ibne umar ra was neutral still and did not get involved

infact I heard in a lecture when uthman ra was besieged - Ibne umar ra spoke to him and said to him that he should put his trust in Allah swt, to be firm and avoid the bloodshed in medinah as every muslim strives for jannah. uthman ra replied that the prophet pbuh gave him the exact same advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare

it also shows what kind of man he was, that he did not want bloodshed between Muslims and even though he was a pious person did not see Imamat they way it is seen/understood now.

Did the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w make it clear to the sahaba the position of the Imams, did He explain the level of authority they hold?

Now turn the tables just say that was the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w fighting in Jamal and Siffeen, by him not wanting bloodshed between muslims and stay away from the battles would this deeds be seen as good thing or a bad deed?

Keep the above in mind, now him doing all the things you've quoted do you think Allah swt would be pleased with his actions?

@Ibrahim

1) No - he forbade his sister and did NOT go out in any battles where muslims were fighting each other

By him not supporting the righteous caliph of the time, this itself is great sin. Did he think he knew better than Imam Ali a.s, didn't the Imam know He was fighing the muslims?

2) hassan ra went to war with muawiyah ra as he was the kahlifah and his right until he realised the best solution for many reasons was to make peace and do bayah to muawiyah.

Imam Hassan a.s never left the war with his choice, He had no choice but to make treaty with Mu'awiya. Majority of Imam's army betrayed him that's why he done treaty with Mu'awiya not bayah

3) ibne umar ra was neutral still and did not get involved

By him not supporting the Imam of the time is like not supporting the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w, to remain neutral in these circumstances was haraam for him not a good deed.

infact I heard in a lecture when uthman ra was besieged - Ibne umar ra spoke to him and said to him that he should put his trust in Allah swt, to be firm and avoid the bloodshed in medinah as every muslim strives for jannah. uthman ra replied that the prophet pbuh gave him the exact same advice.

We hear many things but are they the facts of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare

Did the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w make it clear to the sahaba the position of the Imams, did He explain the level of authority they hold?

Now turn the tables just say that was the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w fighting in Jamal and Siffeen, by him not wanting bloodshed between muslims and stay away from the battles would this deeds be seen as good thing or a bad deed?

You tell me. The onus is on you not me. As for the second part, no-Muslim disputed the Prophet's status, otherwise they wouldn't be Muslims so you can't use that as an example. However, since you are, accordingly the sahaba who in many cases gave up everything for the sake of Islam then all decided to damn themselves by rejecting Imam Ali's imamate?

We hear many things but are they the facts of history.

This is very important and applies to both sunnis and shias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

There is a well-known narration in Sahih Bukhari where `Abdullah ibn `Umar says:

Sahih Bukhari. Vol 9, Book 88. Hadith 227.

Narrated By Nafi' : When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection', and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle, and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone/disconnect Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

This was said in 683 AH, when Ibn `Umar was about 69. He was therefore a mature man during the Caliphate of `Ali (as), and obviously knew the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh), since he heard it himself.

Now, there interesting points to me are the following:

If there is nothing more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the condition enjoined by Allah and His Apostle, then where does that leave Mu`awiya and the other Sahaba that fought against Imam `Ali (as)? Logically speaking, if fighting against Yazid, after all the crimes he had committed, was an act of total faithlessness, then how can the same not be the case of fighting against `Ali (as)?

In light of that, why did Ibn `Umar immediately pledge support to Mu`awiya when the latter declared his caliphate? Did he do the same for Imam Hasan (as) when he declared his caliphate? Doesn't seem like it.

And finally, the big question, just why was he not willing to support Imam `Ali (as)'s caliphate? Was `Ali (as) not a legitimate caliph in his view? It's not like there were any rivals claiming caliphate at the time everyone else was pledging allegiance.

It's kind of hard not to come to the conclusion that Ibn `Umar had nasibi tendencies when you see his behaviour here, and then remember certain narrations like:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203:

Narrated Ibn `Umar: The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."

Ok. So presumably in his view `Ali (as) must have been ordering an act of disobedience to Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Otherwise how could he justify not giving allegiance, or giving allegiance to someone who disobeyed the ruler?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 7:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

We used to compare the people as to who was better during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle . We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best, then 'Umar, and then 'Uthman.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 47:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During the lifetime of the Prophet we considered Abu Bakr as peerless and then 'Umar and then 'Uthman (coming next to him in superiority) and then we used not to differentiate between the companions of the Prophet.

So `Ali (as) was of the same status as any other companion after the first three he mentions. Nothing special about him at all. It would be one thing if he mentioned only Abu Bakr and `Umar, since Sunnis consider them to be far above the others, but he includes `Uthman as well, but not `Ali (as). This seems like a deliberate attempt to lower his status.

It's not just ibn Umar:

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 410 :

Narrated by Anas

The Prophet said, ''Every betrayer will have a flag on the Day of Resurrection" One of the two sub-narrators said that the flag would be fixed, and the other said that it would be shown on the Day of Resurrection, so that the betrayer might be recognized by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare

You tell me. The onus is on you not me.

Of course He s.a.w.w did, if He didn't then he was guilty of being neglectful of his duty by not making it clear to everyone that Imam Ali a.s is your leader after me.

As for the second part, no-Muslim disputed the Prophet's status, otherwise they wouldn't be Muslims so you can't use that as an example.

After the event of Ghadir Khumm till the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w death did anyone dispute that Imam Ali was not their leader after the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w death? I don't see anyone in history who didn't except one person and he recieved his punishment from Allah swt. I can use the example because what difference does it make that if the Prophet s.a.w.w was fighting in Siffeen or Imam Hussain a.s or Imam Ali raza a.s the Ahlul Bayt are all one in words and actions.

However, since you are, accordingly the sahaba who in many cases gave up everything for the sake of Islam then all decided to damn themselves by rejecting Imam Ali's imamate?

Yes I firmly believe that majority of the did damn themselves by rejecting Imam Ali a.s Imamate, why is the so hard for you to believe when the Holy Quran gives numerous examples that majority of people are astray. Look at the time of Imam Hussain a.s how many supported him, what happened to majority? Look at the time of 7th Imam who was in prision, what did the majority of muslims do?

Also there hadiths that say majority of the people will go against Imam Ali a.s

It's not just ibn Umar:

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 410 :

Narrated by Anas

The Prophet said, ''Every betrayer will have a flag on the Day of Resurrection" One of the two sub-narrators said that the flag would be fixed, and the other said that it would be shown on the Day of Resurrection, so that the betrayer might be recognized by it.

Doesn't matter who said it but look at the context of when did Ibn Umar say it and what was his objective?

Edited by muslimunity1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

@Ibrahim

By him not supporting the righteous caliph of the time, this itself is great sin. Did he think he knew better than Imam Ali a.s, didn't the Imam know He was fighing the muslims?

I am not going to judge this great sahabi ibne umar ra - how can be a great sin to fight fellow muslims because of ijtehadi issues - he did the right thing . in terms of ali ra - no doubt his intention was pure and not to fight muslims but unfortunately we cant say the same for some of his army i.e. the sabaiya

Imam Hassan a.s never left the war with his choice, He had no choice but to make treaty with Mu'awiya. Majority of Imam's army betrayed him that's why he done treaty with Mu'awiya not bayah

sometimes I think the shias degrade their own imams - what kind of reply is that. you imply that hassan ra was a wimp. I swear by Allah swt that if hassan ra thought that fighting muawiyah was the right thing to do for islam he would do it on his own even if he was they only man in the army. Never think that our pious ancestors would forsake that hereafter for this world.

the reality is brother that hassan ra differed with ali ra in terms of how to deal with muawiyah - hassan ra was aggreived of all the losses and decided to unite the ummah under muawiyah, he handed over the khilafah and did bayah to muawiyah and so did hussain ra. He did the right thing.

By him not supporting the Imam of the time is like not supporting the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w, to remain neutral in these circumstances was haraam for him not a good deed.

this comments is void when talking to a sunni as we dont believe in the imamah

We hear many things but are they the facts of history.

we both do - but I am not arrogant enough to pretend that I have the knowledge to debunk and refute shia school of thought or degrade their work or their loved ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I am not going to judge this great sahabi ibne umar ra - how can be a great sin to fight fellow muslims because of ijtehadi issues - he did the right thing . in terms of ali ra - no doubt his intention was pure and not to fight muslims but unfortunately we cant say the same for some of his army i.e. the sabaiya

What about Mu`awiya's army? They were all pious Muslims were they? What was their intention exactly in fighting the rightful Khalifa?

sometimes I think the shias degrade their own imams - what kind of reply is that. you imply that hassan ra was a wimp. I swear by Allah swt that if hassan ra thought that fighting muawiyah was the right thing to do for islam he would do it on his own even if he was they only man in the army. Never think that our pious ancestors would forsake that hereafter for this world.

Nobody is saying he would forsake the hereafter for this world, but if he had no support, then what was the point in fighting?

the reality is brother that hassan ra differed with ali ra in terms of how to deal with muawiyah - hassan ra was aggreived of all the losses and decided to unite the ummah under muawiyah, he handed over the khilafah and did bayah to muawiyah and so did hussain ra. He did the right thing.

So the right way for `Ali (as) to deal with Mu`awiya would have been to give bay`ah to Mu`awiya? Is that what you are implying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What about Mu`awiya's army? They were all pious Muslims were they? What was their intention exactly in fighting the rightful Khalifa?

I believe that they were much better muslims than you and I are today dont you think. Ali ra declared war on muawiyah - siffeen is in shaam not near kufa and they had not done bayah yet. However I do believe that ali ra was on the haqq and muawiyah made a mistake - but that does not mean he was this evil character that you make him out to be. He made a mistake which in hindsight you and I can easily in our comfort point out !!!

Nobody is saying he would forsake the hereafter for this world, but if he had no support, then what was the point in fighting?

because a muslim fights for the haqq and relies on Allah swt and he does not look at numbers, manpower or firepower. A Muslim can never lose a battle why? because he either wins the battle or gets jannah. this is the lesson from badr !!!!

So the right way for `Ali (as) to deal with Mu`awiya would have been to give bay`ah to Mu`awiya? Is that what you are implying?

No I never said ali ra should have given bayah to muawiyah or imply such a thing.if you mean hassan ra - then obviously hassan ra thought it was best for the ummah to unite under muawiyah and I am not going to disagree with him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...